Strangle The Climate Sceptics In Their Beds!!

This post is just something to suck on and give you pause for thought before I look at the BBC’s recent bit of climate propaganda…Is there a Green Hush?

The BBC has maintained a constant narrative that climate scientists are ‘under attack’ from sceptics and therefore such pressure explains the scientist’s refusal to explain their actions or indeed their ‘science’.

The trouble is it is in fact the sceptics who are under the worse attacks, led it might be said by the mainstream media…such as the BBC and the Guardian.

In any future reporting of Gore we should be careful not to suggest that the High Court says Gore was wrong on climate…….

We might say something like: “Al Gore whose film was judged by the High Court to have used some debatable science” or “Al Gore whose film was judged in the High Court to be controversial in parts”. The key is to avoid suggesting that the judge disagreed with the main climate change thesis.

Please pass to presenters because this issue about Gore will arise again.

“I’m not sure whether I should shake your hand. I want to punch you.” He sounded jolly cross indeed – and ranted that I was utterly irresponsible and had disseminated lots of lies – though he later apologized to me saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker.

Over two decades I’ve spoken to mainstream scientists who are sick of hearing their work attacked and their motives questioned. In this world, climate science extends beyond arguments about trend-smoothing to become a matter of life and death for millions of people, according to the mainstream projections on temperatures.

Can there be much doubt that such sentiments lead to this type of thinking from the Green Lobby?:

With high probability GW will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

Below is a selection of voices articulating what measures should be taken to silence or punish climate sceptics….if you think calls for death might be a little extreme you might ask why the BBC’s favourite ‘caring’ activist, Richard Curtis, also ‘jokingly’ implies that might not be a bad idea in his climate video for the 10:10 campaign.

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

And…all lovingly written by the man who is is allowed by the BBC to use its massive broadcasting platform to pump out ‘poverty porn’ and when he’s not doing that filling the airwaves with Green hype and misinformation..Richard Curtis:

There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign’s ‘No Pressure’ film

“Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

Why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: “Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”

“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” she adds.

Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”

Here the ‘Tallbloke’ reveals the thoughts of another eco-fascist who wants to punish sceptics by killing them, though he thinks freedom of thought is a ‘very valuable thing’!:The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.

Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion.….[but]…….GW deniers fall into a completely different category. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.With high probability GW will cause hundreds of millions of deaths.

For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths

Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.

The authors drew on dozens of studies into people’s reactions to news about climate change, some of which suggest that certain types of people are more likely to find the evidence for human-induced climate change less convincing than others.

More in a similar vein:David Roberts is a blogger over at the green website Gristmill. On September 19, 2006, evidently fed up with climate change deniers, Roberts made an interesting suggestion for how to resolve scientific issues. To wit: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Roberts is far from alone. As Brendan O’Neill over at spiked points out, “climate change deniers” are now being likened by some activists to Holocaust deniers or even Nazis themselves. Apparently, it is no longer acceptable to question in polite company the hypothesis that humanity is causing catastrophic climate change.

Global warming: the chilling effect on free speechThe demonisation of ‘climate change denial’ is an affront to open and rational debate.‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.

Of course the BBC is at the forefront of the attacks on climate sceptics, orchestrated by Roger Harrabin who runs the Green’s ‘Black Ops’ misinformation campaign…CMEP.

When the CRU emails were released into the world, after a months silence from the BBC, we finally got a response from Harrabin and Co…a response that was obviously an organised one being exactly the same from several BBC journalists and some of their allies:

Harrabin…The UEA’s CRU is one of the most respected centres in the world and its data set is like others around the world. Hackers stole private emails that climate sceptics say manipulated the data…if it were true it would be extremely serious but scientists behind it absolutely reject the allegation…I have spoken to a lot of scientists and they are very confident that the science behind the CRU data will be upheld.Obviously this was a bid to sabotage Copenhagen…millions of dollars are spent by American business trying to discredit AGW and this is the background as to why researchers have behaved in a defensive way.

But speaking to my source at the CRU, it is also clear that the unit has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and unreasonable demands for data – and that there is personal animus against their intellectual rivals.

Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia – but the revelations come at a sensitive time as the world’s nations gather for the climate meeting in Copenhagen.

In the absence of any formal inquiry, trial by internet will continue. For better or for worse.Tom Feilden….this shows how difficult it can be to remain objective when scientists are subjected to concerted attacks by those who will do or say anything to win a wider political argument.The CRU emails are taken out of context….are they the result of exasperation by someone who has been subjected to constant harassment by an orchestrated group of campaigners?

Seems that BBC correspondents and climate alarmists are ‘orchestrating’ a campaign…..the themes are all consistently the same….out of context, stolen, scientists under attack and being forced to be defensive, climate sceptics orchestrate.
Curiously climate misinformation campaigner, Bob Wade from the Grantham Institute at the LSE, uses the same excuses…political motivated theft and harassed scientists.

In 2008 Harrabin was involved in a controversy after he altered a BBC Online report on climate forecasting report following complaints by an environmentalist and the World Meteorological Organisation. Conservative critics accused Harrabin of caving into pressure.

Abbess: “Several networks exist that question whether global warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have no expertise in this area.”Harrabin: “No correction is needed. If the secy-gen of the WMO tells me that global temperatures will decrease, that’s what we will report”Abbess: “Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics/skeptics who continually promote the idea that ‘global warming finished in 1998′, when that is so patently not true.“Please do not do a disservice to your readership by leaving the door open to doubt about that.”Harrabin: “We can’t ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing reguarly now in general media. Best to tackle this – and explain it, which is what we have done.”(still no mention of the WMO…)Abbess: “When you are on the Tube in London, I expect that occasionally you glance a headline as sometime turns the page, and you thinkg [sic] ‘Really?’ or ‘Wow !’ You don’t read the whole article, you just get the headline.“It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. [Even the BBC? – astonished ed] They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth. I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.”“A lot of people will read the first few paragraphs of what you say, and not read the rest, and (a) Dismiss your writing as it seems you have been manipulated by the sceptics or (b) Jump on it with glee and email their mates and say “See! Global Warming has stopped !”“I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”Harrabin: “Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.”

Harrabin has a little job on the side, using his BBC job as a platform to launch his lucrative public speaking career:

Many of today’s environment/equity themes became issues of public concern following Roger’s reports on Radio 4’s “Today” programme. They include climate change, biodiversity, carbon footprints, population, over-fishing, green taxation, road pricing, global inter-connectedness, 3rd World debt, and many more. He was years ahead of the pack in showing how the environment links to energy, transport, farming, government aid, foreign policy, planning

31 Responses to Strangle The Climate Sceptics In Their Beds!!

You can tell the difference between real scientists and those with an agenda. As you can the difference between a good science reporter and one who has an agenda. In the case of climate science the good reporter will question what the climate scientists are doing to improve their models, given the overestimate of global temperatures.

A poor reporter, with an agenda, instead asks what is the best way to counter criticisms of something they believe is set in stone.

United Nations Agenda 21 , Adopted by USA, U.K./EU, Australia etc. A world plan to curb population , polution and personal freedom. Of which the AGW hoax is an important part. –

“The true objectives of Agenda 21 include an end to national sovereignty; restructure of the family unit which means basically the state will take care of your children, with a keen eye toward indoctrinating them into state control over family allegiance; abolition of private property with citizens crammed into “stack and pack”, hi-rise apartment buildings, close to railroad tracks while cars will not be allowed.”

“We are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse” ……”our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth.”

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’.

In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, social justice and many other items on the liberal/socialist wish list.

‘The Club of Rome is focusing in its new programme on the root causes of the systemic crisis by defining and communicating the need for, the vision and the elements of a new economy, which produces real wealth and wellbeing; which does not degrade our natural resources and provides meaningful jobs and sufficient income for all people.‘

No mention of money trees, presumably because they are a ‘natural resource’ which they do not want to degrade.

(Question: if you are not going to use a natural resource, how can you count it as a resource?)

This is all reminiscent of the Nazi era, and also the communist era in Russia.

Disbelievers in the established agenda should be silenced at all costs, and preferably transported away from the rest of humanity, and or/quietly disposed of. They shall NOT transgress the “accepted” policy, for it is written that climate change is purely (and solely) the fault of all mankind, who should be punished, whatever the cost, even be it freedom.

The “science”, such as it is, is of no import. The ideology MUST prevail. The public, and interested and informed parties must NOT be permitted to doubt the religion, and have their voices heard, for they are the scum of the earth – there is no debate, and, after all the “science” is settled. Any thoughts to the contrary must be eradicated, and any evidence to the contrary must be expunged from the minds of the people. They are NOT to be allowed to believe what it is they are seeing and experiencing. We must prevail, at all costs.

The Guardia and the BBC are at the forefront, of course – it’s what they do.

Nothing to do with science and everything to do with an extreme eco-socialist ideology, which is why the AGW proponents are saying the science is settled and we now need to move on to what we do about it.

Well, the ‘what we do about it’ is UN Agenda 21, ‘mitigating actions’ against ‘climate change’ writ large. It’s a blueprint for a world government which will not be dissimilar to the EU, only far more socialist, far more eco-fascist and far more controlling of our lives with re-distribution of wealth from the West to the Third World and mass immigration from the Third World to the West at the heart of its political agenda. The stakes are high – why else would these fanatics defend their beliefs with such bile, spite and total disregard for the scientific method.

It is amazing that even in the face of Climategate and real world evidence, the AGW movement has continued to proceed untouched by any proper governmental challenge, save by one or two smaller nations.

Delingpole was quite upbeat in 2010 when Climategate broke, as were a lot of people: ‘And naturally, in the wake of Climategate, a mood of uproarious triumphalism has prevailed as distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here – have gathered to dance on the smouldering ashes of the mythical beast ManBearPig.‘

Four years down the line, nothing has changed – the AGW zealots are still in control.

In this world, climate science extends beyond arguments about trend-smoothing to become a matter of life and death for millions of people, according to the mainstream projections on temperatures.

Recently, on another forum with pro AGW members, I suggested that – as the debate on main causes of climate change is settled – we should divert budgets from climate research to funding engineering research into viable renewable energies.

I even conceded that fossil fuels are a finite resource and therefore we are all agreed that mankind needs viable means of powering itself. It is imperative.

The tack that had been taken by a man named Bjorn Lomborg, who, for those who may not know the name, is a Danish writer on these issues, whose thesis has been essentially, “OK, CAGW– so, why are we still studying it, and not diverting the money into research into how to live with it?”, his point being, that it really ISN’T as catastrophic as all that, and the CAGW crowd are fools or knaves with their Chicken Little (“Headless Chicken”?) act, which accomplishes nothing.

Because his position has been holistic, i.e., the “spaghetti approach”– keep throwing all possible solutions at the wall, and see which ones “stick” (like, e.g., fracking)– he has been seen as a sell-out to Big Fossil Fuel. This, certain folks cannot abide.

The point to be made is, of course, Pournelle’s Iron Law regarding organisations addressing problems– eventually the organisation becomes less about solving the problem and more about self-perpetuation by preserving the problem.

It is Harrabin who is the danger to mankind, not the climate sceptics who are the ones that believe that *man made* Co2 has had no effect or will have no measurable affect upon Global Warming and henceforth Climate Change. Climate change has always and will always take place, but these idiots who promote climate change because of weather change really are a dangerous breed. I note they mainly come from the *Far Left* of our society, and the views of them are promoted what seems hourly by the BBC, another *Far Left* organisation. And if it is not the BBC promoting the idea of *Climate Change* then it is some charity/pressure group who will pedal their religion afforded air time by the BBC. There are far more adverse natural conditions that affect climate change (history records such things) and not the piffle spread by Harrabin or the BBC who have an agenda to spread such piffle.

Harrabin’s position is so exposed and so compromised that the only explanation for his remaining with the BBC is that his employers condone his activism and, to be blunt, don’t give a damn how it looks.

This is how the left always do business: no need to attack the argument when attacking the person is more effective.
They hope to bury the scientifically legitimate but politically inconvenient arguments against global warming in shit so that no one will dare admit their veracity in public. They’ve been doing that successfully with many other political arguments for decades. For example, for many years you were instantly defiled as a racist if you dared public scepticism of the EU or uncontrolled mass immigration. The BBC and the Guardian would call you a racist even now for either offence.
Maybe the truth will out eventually. Democracy is the least worst option and all that guff but it does take a REALLY long time to get to the right answer.

They also deliberately miss the point to try and ‘win’ an argument. The EU/racism thing is a good example, as is the child smacking/’abuse’ link among others. Then again, the right does this a lot as well by saying financial regulation and wanting people to pay their taxes is down to jealousy when the fact is the wealth creators can’t create or sustain wealth without everyone else.

It’s a shame that such childishness can get in the way of what is obviously a really crucial issue. When the climate change lobby resorts to ad hominem attacks and intimidating reporters like this it just validates those who think they have no obligation to the environment. If they really cared about the world they’d be looking for solutions and directing their time and money towards researching renewable energy (which we should be doing ANYWAY since even without man-made climate change it’s a stupid and irresponsible idea to just burn through fossil fuel without regard to what we’ll do when it’s gone) instead of this endless pissing contest with people they’re ideologically opposed to.

O.K. , so let us take on board the idea that Global Warming caused by man made increase in Co2 affects climate change. Let us assume that Global Warming is taking place and that we need to reduce Co2. Harrabin, the BBC and all the other Green and Lefty Groups, get us to reduce the Co2, but I ask, to what level? What level Mr Harrabin? Too much reduction and by your own assumption, we have Global Cooling and as a result of too much reduction in Co2, millions of people across our globe will die unnecessarily because of the colder temperatures. If this happens, then please tell me you won’t be then demanding an increase in Co2 to once again warm our planet? Is this what you want Mr Harrabin? Is this what you want the BBC? So come on Mr Harrabin, please enlighten us as to what levels of global Co2 will give the planet the equilibrium you so need and then what *religion* will you foist upon us all?

In winter 2010-11 the Met Office’s blindness to the obvious compromised their ability to warm the government, councils transport companies/agencies and people generally of the impending vicious cold snap and big snow falls.

I woud imagine that a few dozen people died.

Roger Harrabin tried to cover up for the MOs bias-induced incompetence.

Outside of Climate Science, scepticism, belief, speculation, assumptions and consensus are not as important as facts, proof, evidence, observations, correlations and the results from experiments.

The problem is that the Climate believers do not have any evidence for me to be sceptical about, only a disproved assumption that man-made carbon dioxide caused Global Warming until 1997, and then caused the Climate to Change from 1998.

Climate scientist are under attack, from Astronomers, because of scientific errors at the core of the carbon dioxide theory, solved by Astronomers using the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus.

The truth is that Climate scientists haven’t got any coherent science to explain to viewers, using the scientific method.

For instance, with peer review in Astronomy, they reply to any errors found, the rudest reply would say “we have already found this error, and have already corrected the draft”

In Climate science, some times, they do not reply, and they do not correct the error, just like socialists, the attitude is that they want to instil fear and repression on anyone who notices the error, because correcting an error is an admission of weakness, and only right-wing scientists are weak.

The best and most famous example of this is the Hockey stick.

The Hockey stick paper had two fundamental errors at either end of the graph. The tree ring end assumed that all thin tree rings where caused by cold, but isotope analysis showed that many of the thin tree rings were caused by hot droughts. This is what eliminated the medieval warm period.

This was the part that was corrected before the BBC interviewed Michael Mann on that Climate documentary.

But because the statistical error on the other end of the graph is essential for the Hockey Stick fraud, Mann is still refusing to disclose his computer codes.

Most other scientific papers before and after the Hockey stick, using other techniques such as bore hole data, sea sediment data, seeds in peat and even historical records produce a medieval warming period, slightly warmer than the present Global-warming peak.

The core problem with Climate science is that the field is bloated with a huge empire of taxpayer funded politicised scientists who’s jobs are dependant on one answer, and that answer is “MANKIND IS RESPONSIBLE”. The Government needs to sack everyone in Climate Science, except causational Climate scientists such as atmospheric physicists and Solar Astronomers. The rest of them are social parasites.

Hatred of and serious threats to others who do not share their views are quite normal to the Left, it is how they operate, it is part of their DNA. It led to the deaths of millions in the last century. The bile and murderous intent always comes out, whatever the subject. They are dangerous, why do they seem to immune from prosecution? Is there not more of a hint of incitement to violence here? Why do you get so many violent protesters? I maintain this language is designed to that end. I am not be the first to say it either.

Where are the enforcement authorities? Are they so corrupted and biased themselves that they do not recognise what is being said. These fanatics are not joking.

Sometime in the 80’s there was US made for TV type movie called The Third World War or World War Three (I forget precisely which. It’s about the escalation of events between the US & Russia leading to a nuclear attack by each nation. The only really notable bit was at the end when the US President says “My God, what have we done”. It was very apt because it was simply impossible to put all the stupid decisions and their consequnces back in the box.

I think about that when I see this stuff with these people. I’m not talking about Lenin’s Useful Idiots – they simply don’t know what’s coming. I’m talking about those that are malign and want end consequences to come about to bring the dystopian future.

What “amuses” me is that all of them think they will get rescued from the disastrous consequences because they pushed the narrative. They think the mothership will rescue them and they will be living high on the hog whilst the plebs suffer. They haven’t realised that those at the very top will quite simply leave them behind. They’ll go the same way as the rest of us. Eventually they’ll realise this when there’s not a damn thing they can do to unwind everything they helped to bring about.

I always feel that the real tragedy of the entire CAGW scam is the cost to genuine environmental protection and the plight of Least Developed Nations who just want to be able to live their lives with the basic decencies we here in the West have enjoyed for so many years.

That CAGW zealots turn a blind eye to the very real suffering and damage that their heartless misappropriation of public funding and baseless scaremongering has brought about really is, at the very least, shocking – at the worst, it must surely be good cause for very public naming and shaming.

Of course, so-called ‘environmental’ NGOs have long been at the vanguard of trough-swilling parasites willing to exchange genuine environmental protection budgets for the bigger, fatter public handouts afforded by publicly adopting pro-CAGW credentials and weaving the CAGW meme into all their literature and promotions. It’s a self-serving gravy train of bottom feeders and dissemblers; underneath it all lies the real prize, as the BBC knows full well – the grand political project embodied by Agenda 21 courtesy of the UN and the EU (who else?) and all it represents to these enemies of progress.

But I reserve, as always, my greatest ire for the measurable, recorded, historical harm to human life and progress caused by these selfish charlatans. Watching the recent aftermath unfold in the Philippines following Haiyan was heartbreaking – in part, because so much of the loss of life and property (and with it potentially life-saving infrastructure) could have at least been effectively mitigated to some degree by directing all those wasted CAGW cash handouts instead to providing genuine real-world storm protection for such perennially endangered populations around the world.

Tropical storms have always been with us and will always be with us – by now, we know the dangers and we know how to offer the best protection. It won’t ever save all the lives at risk, but it will save many more than CAGW funding will ever manage. It’s a tragedy that so little of the $billions wasted on CAGW every year are diverted from projects that could genuinely save lives, protect habitats and look after the environment in so many measurable ways.

For that – a wilful crime, to me, even if to nobody else – I hold organisations such as the BBC directly responsible, so long as they continue to promote the myth of CAGW – as proven ‘consensual’ fact.

It’s about 28-Gate and Tony Newbury’s result, of which we’re all aware already. But it contains this bit of information which some may recall but I’d forgotten there was evidence:

Mr Harrabin was the seminar’s principal organiser. He ran it through the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, an outfit he set up with Open University lecturer Joe Smith. Mr Harrabin and Mr Smith did not derive personal financial benefit from the seminar.

He may not have earned money directly from organizing the seminar, but surely there are other ways Harrabin benefited financially and professionally. Did arranging this have an effect on his position at the BBC, which would in turn affect his pay packet?

Aside from that pure speculation, how is it acceptable for someone with a known vested interest in a special interest group – one which seeks money from the government – to be a journalist covering that special interest for the impartial BBC? It’s amazing that they think this is okay. Then again, they have so many high profile names who have intimate relationships with think thanks (e.g. Evan Davis) and other agenda-pushing groups like Common Purpose (e.g. Robert Peston and who knows how many others), it’s probably just another area of impartiality where the BBC has a fig leaf policy and simply doesn’t care, and don’t enforce unless they get a major complaint (much to the confusion and resentment of the Beeboid who thought there wasn’t a problem), like they do with social media.

‘…how is it acceptable for someone with a known vested interest in a special interest group – one which seeks money from the government – to be a journalist covering that special interest for the impartial BBC?’
Quite simply, it is not, or should not be.
However, ‘conflict of interest’ has simply become yet another unique to add to a sorry, growing number that the BBC has managed to establish as a norm no other organisation and its staff would ever be permitted… especially by the BBC’s reporters.
There again, this is an entity who oversees itself internally, in secret, and whose default reaction to exposure is to abuse, defame or ban anyone who holds the mirror up to them enough that they have to confront their multiples of standard.

“…how is it acceptable for someone with a known vested interest in a special interest group – one which seeks money from the government – to be a journalist covering that special interest for the impartial BBC?”

As ever, you hit the nail firmly on the head, David. Expect a stony silence from the BBC in reply. They call it ‘being accountable to the license payers’. I call it ‘knowing deception’.

“Mr Harrabin was the seminar’s principal organiser. He ran it through the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, an outfit he set up with Open University lecturer Joe Smith. Mr Harrabin and Mr Smith did not derive personal financial benefit from the seminar”.
Just ask yourself: What exactly was it about this ‘seminar’ that cost £67,000 ?
: SPEAKERS AT 5 – 10 GRAND A POP !
The saintly Mr Harrabin may not have benefited personally THIS TIME, but you can bet your bottom dollar that, say Lord May, organises a climate change ‘seminar’ at, say, the university of east anglia, said

The end of that went a bit awry. I meant to say: The next time , say, Lord May, say, organises a ‘seminar at, say, the university of East Anglia, you can bet said Mr Harrabin will be on the list of speakers at 5-10 grand a pop. THATS HOW THEY OPERATE – and its all done with public money. What private organisation or group can afford to blow nearly seventy grand on a seminar attended by about forty people ?
People like David Suzuki (hope I’ve got the name right) demand 30 – 40 grand a throw to speak at venues with a couple of hundred people, tops. Where’s the money coming from ? You can bet they’re not paying £1500 apiece, just to hang on to his every word.
The whole speaking/lecture circuit (not just climate) is a massive back scratching self serving FRAUD.